Source authority
The archive separates allegation records from findings, legal rhetoric from binding authority, and repeated claims from independent corroboration. Source authority is a reading order, not a shortcut around evidence.
Court filings, judgments, official legal texts, government submissions, operational datasets, official transcripts, and primary state records.
Strongest starting layer, but still read for scope: provisional, advisory, allegation, merits finding, or binding text are not the same thing.
Senior military, urban-warfare, targeting, intelligence, and law-of-armed-conflict analysis.
Important for feasibility, proportionality, warnings, human shields, military necessity, and ex-ante decision context.
Legal organizations, lawyers, academic commentary, amicus briefs, and jurisdiction or treaty analysis.
Useful for argument mapping; not displayed as a court finding unless a court actually decided it.
UN Watch, CAMERA, NGO Monitor, HonestReporting, media corrections, source-chain audits, and methodology critiques.
Used to trace omissions, laundering, corrections, headline compression, and downstream amplification.
Original broadcasts, interviews, debates, speeches, YouTube videos, timestamps, and transcript excerpts.
Strong for proving what was said. Interpretation still depends on context, accuracy, and whether quotes are complete.
News articles, NGO reports, UN rapporteur claims, activist posts, campaign material, and repeated allegation records.
Useful to preserve and trace accusations. Not enough by itself for final factual or legal proof.
The archive records allegation sources so the public can see who made the claim and how it spread.
A claim repeated by NGO, UN, media, and social channels may still come from the same weak origin.
Advisory opinions, provisional measures, political resolutions, indictments, and merits judgments carry different force.
Targeting, proportionality, warning feasibility, and precautions must be judged from what was knowable at the time.
Incident records can contain real civilian harm and still fail as accusations of deliberate targeting, indiscriminate attack, or genocidal intent. The archive therefore separates outcome evidence from target evidence, what was knowable before the strike, warning feasibility, Hamas conduct, military objective, proportionality, and later source-chain amplification.